Problematizing donor conception and drawing the right conclusions from the evidence

From the very start of sperm donation, psychological studies have shown that donor-conceived children were doing well. This stands in sharp contrast to message given by a vocal but small group persons whose frustration and anger create impression we are dealing with problematic contentious practice. The obvious conclusion is they cannot be taken as representative total population persons. present study part series publications emanating from National Longitudinal Lesbian Family Study (1Carone N. Gartrell N.K. Rothblum E.D. Koh A.S. Bos H.M.W. stability adjustment among offspring U.S. childhood adulthood: differences donor type.Fertil Steril. 2021; 115: 1302-1311Abstract Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (4) Google Scholar). has two strong merits: its longitudinal perspective unbiased sample. Almost all on attitudes based highly biased samples, recruited support networks websites created enable contact between donors, offspring, siblings. Despite concern conceived gametes would at risk difficulties, performed samples showed no naturally-conceived families (2Golombok S. Ilioi E. Blake L. Roman G. Jadva V. A formed through reproductive donation: parent-adolescent relationships adolescent age 14.Dev Psychol. 2017; 53: 1966-1977Crossref (27) Although these crucial getting us point where now, one starts wondering how long will keep looking for problems. It almost if or do not want believe kids right. Being donor-conceived, surely having an anonymous donor, must entail serious psychosocial issues, it not? By assuming problems families, this research indirectly regardless intentions, presents genetic preferable unproblematic. unfair gamete donation adoption. Empirical studies, including Carone et al. Scholar), supposed help clinics, policy makers, current future parents make informed decisions about treatments, policies, regulation. However, legislation regulation theories resistant empirical findings. When theoretical claim confirmed even contradicted findings, expects researchers either drop modify and/or alternative explanations. Take issue disclosing conception harmful effects secrecy. been argued family secrets adverse effect and, thus, child. Not single informing child mode (considered many ultimate secret) results empirically measurable harm (3Pennings Disclosure conception, disclosure well-being offspring.Hum Reprod. 32: 969-973Crossref (25) Still, psychologists counselors repeating over again telling early better While drawing conclusions making recommendations, ignored their own investigators should applauded breaking trend: pointed out did confirm assumed link adoption regarding knowing being able access one’s origins. already important itself, go further: question existence supposedly underlying mechanism (the so-called “genealogical bewilderment”) (4Leighton K. Addressing harms one's heredity: lessons genealogical bewilderment.Adoption Culture. 2012; 3: 63-107Crossref That may little more than argument promote certain ideology, is, view “real” family, related genetically. most finding type (anonymous, identifiable, known) irrelevant adult offspring. suggests multitrack system types only allowed recommended. In absence negative consequences possible advantages (e.g., feeling secure role) tip balance. Moreover, (and other studies) necessary origins healthy development. There plenty literature demonstrates last decade increasing number became curious considered contacting him. reaction perfectly normal expected society stresses importance genetics aspects person’s life. reaction, however, does prove people need knowledge sense perform task essential without it, such identity building. confirms this. differ groups terms two-thirds 25-year-olds open had contacted How can explained construct identity? Why connected development detected those groups? similar different Netherlands some same researchers, came “their failed premise kinship theory complete information psychologically harmed” (5Bos H. van Rijn-van Gelderen Self-esteem problem behavior Dutch adolescents planned lesbian parent families.J Studies. 2020; 24: 41-55Crossref (2) seems also relationship reviewed. reassuring evidence social gametes, whole practice problematized. Certain elements practice, anonymity, presented violation fundamental human right anonymity Rights constructions intended protect interests. presumed know interest. People still defend rights arguments, beliefs superiority natural reproduction. latter are, clearly ideological convictions largely independent scientific relevant who our normative rules regulations consistent typeFertility SterilityVol. 115Issue 5PreviewTo (NLLFS) across three time periods adulthood. Full-Text